29-Mar-2024 15:50 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 469 items in your selection (but only 69 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 250] [251 - 300] [301 - 350] [351 - 400] [401 - 450] [451 - 469]
[News] Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4ANN.lu
Posted on 18-Jul-2004 12:20 GMT by Jens Schönfeld469 comments
View flat
View list
During the first months of this year, we were totally surprised by the overwhelming demand for Catweasel MK3. All stock has been sold, and even our retail partners do not have anything left in stock. The demand was so high that one controller even went for more than 150,- EUR on eBay!
Unfortunately, it turned out that a new production run of the existing MK3-design cannot be done for reasonable prices, so a re-design became necessary. The new controller is now in the first stage before mass production, so we're confident to be able to show the first controllers at the Amiwest show on july 24th and 25th in Sacramento, Califoria.

Many improvements have been made compared to the Catweasel MK3 that can be summarized under the headline "bigger, better, faster". The changes in detail

The most obvious change is the size of the card: With only 2.5 inch (63.5mm) height, it complies with the low-profile PCI standard that not only fits into any normal computer case, but also in flat models that are so famous among so-called "case-modders". The Flipper-interface will not be continued. Those who need a Catweasel for their classic Amiga can use the Catweasel Z-II S-Class, which is still availble.

Improvements on the floppy controller
Kylwalda built in
While the old Catweasel models always had their own floppy drives that were installed in addition to the existing controller and drives, the MK4 has the option of using the existing diskdrives. After the machine has started, th drives can be used just like before, and after the drivers have been loaded, the Catweasel can take control of these drives when necessary. This is especially useful for smaller cases with fewer drive bays.
We already addressed this problem earlier with an additional product called 'Kylwalda'.

Suppot for auto-eject drives
These drives without eject-button are well-known from Macintosh computers, and they're now fully supported by the Catweasel. You can also mix floppy types, one with an eject-button, and another from the Macintosh world on the same cable.

Hard-sectored disks supported
This kind of 5.25 and 8 inch disks were already readable with the previous Catweasel models, but writing was only possible with a high software effort, and it required a realtime operating system. This effort is not necessary any more with the new controller, because new options allow complete support of these disk types in hardware.

dual-ported memory
Contrary to it's predecessors, the new Catweasel MK4 can pass the data that it is currently reading from a disk to the computer while the read access is running. This allows realtime emulation, and errorfree function of copy-protected software on emulators.

more flexible read- and write operations
In addition to working on whole tracks, which made all previous Catweasel models so flexible, tracks can now also be accesed in part very precisely. Should this become necessary for compatibility or speed reasons, the Catweasel MK4 is perfectly prepared.

extensive timer-functions
Although most operating systems already offer timer-functions in software, you cannot always rely on them. The most recent example are the timing-problems that occur with Hyperthreading-processors and Windows operating systems. Since all timers are running independantly in the hardware of the Catweasel MK4, nothing can go wrong in this regard.

all events can trigger an interrupt (IRQ)
Together with the hardware-timer functions, this is the best solution for multitasking operating systems. The driver software does not have to check regularly if the controller needs attention, which reduces the processor load.

Improvements on the keyboard interface

In addition to Amiga-keyboards, PS/2 devices can now also be connected. Not only keyboards, but also PS/2 mice are supported. The keyboard controller can now trigger IRQs, and for those customers who want to continue using their favourite combination of PS/2 mouse and keyboard on USB-only computers, the Catweasel MK4 has two connectors of this kind.

Improvements on the joystick ports

Amiga mice supported in hardware
Amiga mice only have minimal electronics that always pass the movements of the device to the computer in realtime. Classic Amiga computers have hardware-support for interpretation of these signals in the chipset, and this support has now been added to the Catweasel. Theoretically, using Amiga mice was already possible with the Catweasel MK3, but this required a software effort that was not justifiable. With the new hardware, the software effort is reduced to a minimum.

every signal can be programmed as output
The digital joystick ports of the 8-bit computers of the 80s were mostly usable in two directions, they were not only inputs, but also programmable as data outputs. We're following this tradition, and also present this possibility for the Catweasel MK4.

compatible with CD32 pads
The game controllers of the Amiga CD32 can now also be used on the Catweasel. A special capability of the classic Amigas (and therefore also of the CD32) made these pads exclusive for this computer, if connected to other computers, not all buttons of the pad could be used. Technically speaking: Even the potentiometer-pins of the digital joystick ports can be programmed as outputs on the Catweasel MK4.

Improvements on the SID audio part

DC-DC converter eliminates noise
On the Catweasel MK3, it was possible that noises from 3D-graphics cards or high-speed harddrives were coupled into the 12V-power supply of the SID audio part. This cannot happen any more on the Catweasel MK4, because a DC-DC converter is an insuperable obstacle for such noises.

cycle-exact control
In addition to the known programming that's compatible with the Catweasel MK3, the MK4 has a sophisticated script-language for SID control. This lets the programmer define the exact time for data that's being written into the SID chips. To make sample playback sound exactly like on a real C64, the data rate to the SID chip must be kept at a constant rate. This is accomplished with Fifo memory that's big enough to maintain the datarate even under high processor load conditions.

Digiboost for new SID versions
As opposed to the 'classic SID' 6581, the newer SID-chips 8580 and 6582 cannot playback samples any more. This option, which is also called 'the fourth voice', is replaced by two sigma-delta converters on the Catweasel MK4, so the fourth channel is also audible with the newer SID versions. Since the filter properties and the sound of mixed waveforms of all SID versions have their supporters, this should make the decision for the right chip a little easier.

Filter capacitors selectable
Commodore has defined three different capacitor values for the filters of the SIDs during the years that this chip has been produced. The result was that the same chip sounded differently if used in different computers. To bring the sound as close as possible to what you are used to, the filter capacitors can be chosen with a few jumpers.

precise clocking
The Catweasel MK3 used the commodore-chip 8701 to recreate the exact same clock. Since our stock of this chip is empty with the Catweasel MK3 being sold out, we have cloned it on the main logic chip of the Catweasel MK4: The exact base frequency is generated with crystals that have been made especially for us. By division and multiplication according to the specifications of the C64 schematics from 1982, we managed to replace the 8701, which is not made any more. Even the slight difference between PAL and NTSC computers is software-selectable!

two SIDs for stereo sound
You'll have twice the SID pleaseure after installing a second SID chip. Every SID has it's own selection of filter capacitors, and SIDs of all versions can be mixed.

Technology improvements

compatible with 3.3V and 5V PCI slots
Even though PC boards with 3.3V PCI slots are not yet widely available, the Catweasel is prepared for it. The roadmap of the PCI special interst group plans to abandon 5V PCI slots within forseeable time, and the Catweasel is perfectly suited for that date. Local generation of the 3.3V power also ensures proper function on early PCI motherboards that do not comply with the ATX standard.

two DMA interfaces
In addition to processor-based data transfer, the Catweasel MK4 can excahnge data with the main system through two low-speed DMA channels: The first goes throught he PCI slot, and it has a capacity of about 8K per second and direction. The second uses the direct connection to the onboard-floppy controller, and the speed is up to 100K per second.

low power consumption
The Catweasel MK4 makes use of the latest FPGA technology with 2.5V core voltage. This reduces the power consumption of the new controller to a fraction of what the Catweasel MK3 used. This also reduces heat generation a lot.

re-configurable logic
The FPGA on the Catweasel MK4 is completely re-configurable by the drivers. This means that a hardware update can be done through the internet! Should we find a disk format that cannot be handled with the current hardware, the core of the Catweasel can be 're-wired' to address the problem. The controller doesn't even have to be taken out of the computer for ths update!

drivers for many operating systems
The Catweasel MK4 is delivered with drivers for Windows 98(se)/ME/XP/2000, Amiga OS4, and for Mac OS X at a later date. MorphOS drivers are available for a surcharge.

The Catweasel MK4 will be available starting october 2004.
The target retail price is 99,- EUR.
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 401 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Peter Gordon on 21-Jul-2004 07:21 GMT
Wahay! We've hit 400.... anyone reckon we'll hit 500?
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 402 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by AdmV0rl0n on 21-Jul-2004 07:50 GMT
In reply to Comment 400 (Fabio Alemagna):
Gentlemen,

I put it to you, that you are talking about an industry, where almost every license out there denies responsibility, workmanship, or liability.
Where Microsoft, and the OSS movement take great pains to make it clear, and where when things go wrong, its your fault, not theirs :P

I did have a long conversation with someone once on the subject, and our conclusion is that the industry has not yet applied the engineering principles as human kind have applied elsewhere. One day you may get software that is fit for the purpose intended, that has liability, and usability with guarantees and so on.

NO WARRANTY

11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

These ideas fly in the face of peoples discussion here over the past few days. Do you know of any products today that are shipped and have a declaration of NO WARRANTY?
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 403 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 21-Jul-2004 08:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 402 (AdmV0rl0n):
Sorry, but by posting that, you're not denying the existence of a contract between the licensee and the licenser - which is the point I'm making -, you are in fact confirming it.

We need to know how was the product advertised and what the license states in order to draw any sensible conclusion about this story.
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 404 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Waldenberg on 21-Jul-2004 08:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 402 (AdmV0rl0n):
When you sell something to a consumer tho there are totally different rules that have to be followed... Check out the homepage of the european consumer agency.
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 405 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by AdmV0rl0n on 21-Jul-2004 08:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 404 (Adam Waldenberg):
There are no rules. I think you misunderstand something, there is no guarantee with software, unlike a car, where if the wheels fall off, you can force the maker to repair it.

With software you rights are limited, curtailed, EVEN REMOVED.
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 406 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 21-Jul-2004 08:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 404 (Adam Waldenberg):
Can we know, exactly, how was the product advertised and what does the license say? We're mostly interested in what system (OS and machine) the product was declared to be compatible with and what does the license/advertisement say about the support.
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 407 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by AdmV0rl0n on 21-Jul-2004 08:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 403 (Fabio Alemagna):
Sorry, was a general post, not really aimed at you :)

AdmV
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 408 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Already ... on 21-Jul-2004 08:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 401 (Peter Gordon):
420 comments at amiga-news.de ;)
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 409 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 21-Jul-2004 08:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 392 (Olegil):
Olegil wrote:
> I am 100% certain that the Peg I with MOS and software bundle can be
> considered as selling at a loss. Designing hardware, firmware and
> software in that scale does not come for free.

Now you're really changing the subject here. I don't know how many
times I've stated in this thread that it is *clear* that the
current Peg (1 or 2) sales cannot return the investment. That has
even been stated by BBRV repeatedly. That does *not* make the sales
subsidised. I've stated this too many times already, but I'll give a
couple of more attempts since obviously you don't get it:

a) Let's say that bPlan (and Genesi, if you like) did everything as
they did until now. Nevermind why. Then let's assume management was
changed and any previous bad plans were canned. Then the interesting
question to ask is: Given that everything is as it is, development has
been done, investments have been made. Does it now pay off to make
boards and sell them at the current price, or does it increase the
loss? Only if it increases the loss, are the boards subsidised.

b) Let's say that somehow, maybe through Freescale or whatever, the
demand for Pegasos boards increases by a large factor such as 10 or
50. Let's say prices are kept as they are. Now, does this mean that
bPlan are better or worse off economically? Only if they would be
*worse* off in this scenario, are the boards subsidised.


Anyway, subsidising hardware is illegal in the US, so it *is* a pretty
strong claim to make.
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 410 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by reflect on 21-Jul-2004 09:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 409 (Johan Rönnblom):
> Anyway, subsidising hardware is illegal in the US, so it *is* a pretty
> strong claim to make.

I find that statement a little strange. It -would- be illegal for a company with a monopoly in one market, if they took THAT money and subsidised something in order to gain monopoly in another market. But there are many ways around that (or Microsoft would have been sued ten times over with their current Xbox sale strategy). If you have your own money and you make hardware.. there are NO rules that requires you to make money selling it. Though, I don't *know* this, I base this on how it is here.. so please, elaborate a little.
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 411 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 21-Jul-2004 09:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 397 (Adam Waldenberg):
But can you prove that, after he mailed you those instructions, that you wrote back to state it didn't work? Within reasonable time? (14 months isn't reasonable)
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 412 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 21-Jul-2004 09:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 398 (Adam Waldenberg):
Basicly, it's your word against Jens, i don't buy neighter, but sofar Jens's version seems more reasonable then yours
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 413 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Stefan Burström on 21-Jul-2004 09:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 409 (Johan Rönnblom):
>Anyway, subsidising hardware is illegal in the US, so it *is* a pretty
strong claim to make.

This is rather silly. It means that if I design and manufacture a development
board for something using VC money and give the development board away for
free I would be comitting a criminal act. Think about it for a while...
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 414 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 21-Jul-2004 09:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 404 (Adam Waldenberg):
AdmV has a good point relating to this industry, i never read a licence that offered a warrenty whatsoever that the program works as advertised. The only thing i've seen covered is the storage medium.

You have no legal case according to my understanding of the laws & your situation, i could be wrong, but i doubt it.
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 415 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by brotheris on 21-Jul-2004 10:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 412 (Amon_Re):
Looks other way around from my point of view.
1. There was a promise for native drivers
2. 68k openpci drivers worked to some extent (buggy, unfinished)
3. He bought the card
4. Said reading worked, but there were some problems with drivers. No worries, because native drivers were promised.
5. After 14 months user asked if bugs are going to get fixed.
6. Jens said 'sell your board on ebay'

Now this is support. he card was bought with support and promise in mind and handling of this situation was bad. Well, just look at the news item, it contains anti-MOS trolling and 'spitting' on users, despite personal disagreement with BBRV.
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 416 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 21-Jul-2004 10:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 413 (Stefan Burström):
Stefan Burström wrote:
> Johan Rönnblom wrote:
>> Anyway, subsidising hardware is illegal in the US, so it *is* a
>> pretty strong claim to make.

> This is rather silly.

Yes it is, but I didn't make those laws. Google for "United States
Anti-Dumping Act of 1916" if you're seriously interested. Obviously
there are provisions for sampling and development units.

Well, searching for "anti dumping act" only reveals that the US is not
the only country with such silly laws.
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 417 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 21-Jul-2004 11:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 414 (Amon_Re):
> You have no legal case according to my understanding of the laws & your
> situation, i could be wrong, but i doubt it.

How funny, you don't know how the license at hand is worded nor how the product was advertised, yet you make such absolute claims. :-)
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 418 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Stefan Burström on 21-Jul-2004 11:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 416 (Johan Rönnblom):
>Yes it is, but I didn't make those laws. Google for "United States
>Anti-Dumping Act of 1916" if you're seriously interested. Obviously
>there are provisions for sampling and development units.

Indeed and this is exactly what bPlan could claim if someone took the
to court acusing them of dumping prices. After all, a batch of 1000-2000
boards cannot be called anything else but sampling quantities in this
market.
So your statement proves absolutely nothing.
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 419 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 21-Jul-2004 11:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 418 (Stefan Burström):
Nah. These boards were sold to absolutely anyone in the regular
market, and I doubt that the law makes a difference based on whether
you're hugely successful or not. :-)

But feel free to examine the law if you really want to find out the
exact definition. Somehow I get the feeling that your interest is less
than genuine, though..
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 420 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Stefan Burström on 21-Jul-2004 12:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 385 (Johan Rönnblom):
>> Well, you were implying that the cost of designing a PCB in Taiwan
>> would be similar to Germany, wern't you?

>No. We were talking about production, not design. If there has been a

Huh? I kind of remember this quote from you: "Willing to
do advanced PCB design for food and shelter?"

Isn't that design? After that, you were saying that the salaries of PCB
designers are similar in Taiwan as in the rest of the world. Read post #327
of yours if you have forgotten.
All I have tried to do is trying to get you to understand that you have no
clue whatsoever what you are talking about. The quote "a Taiwanese is not
likely to ask that much less in salary than a German" of yours is just
hilarious for someone who has been in the contract manufacturing business
for a while. Just stop it while you can, you are just making a fool out
of yourself.
As a side note, I am not basing my argumentation on any of that, I was just
trying to explain to you that you are wrong about ODM and OEM companies.



>and also have to make up for increased costs in logistics and
>transportation.

Right, which is why I have based my estimate only upon the BOM. You wont
get it any cheaper than that :)

>Huh, bPlan are a design house? Not last I checked. Yes, that was the

Check http://www.bplan-gmbh.de/service.html
That pretty much sumarises the services a design house is offering :-)

>comparison made. It wasn't between some average Taiwanese design house
>and some average German one. But you do have a point (although for me
>:), a third party design (or production) house located in Taiwan (or
>anywhere else) is likely to have a capacity that is not tailor-made
>for the specific requirements at hand, as bPlan do.

You are even funnier now. What tailor made requirements do you need
to populate a standard mainbord and feed it through a reflow oven?
I don't see why that would give you a point.

>I beg to differ, and say that you cannot use your "personal
>experience" reasoning here because we're really not talking about
>exactly that, as proven by your switch from "production" over to
>"design".

Huh? I have experience with both, of which you have none, so I still
don't understand of you can 'beg to differ' without any prior knowledge.
Sure, show me your facts and I'll believe you but for now nothing you
say has originated from anything but your thoughts on contract manufacturing
and design based on some heavy extrapolation of Indian programmers.

>I understood you perfectly. But I don't think you understood me. When
>did I claim that absolutely everyone would move, if the salaries were
>different in various countries? Of course I didn't. But since work
>permits are possible, a significant number of people do move. Even if
>just for a limited time, like you did. And these movements rapidly
>level the salaries. Not down to 1:1, but you are aware that people are
>waiting in line every morning in India, for the mere *chance* of
>getting less than necessary to feed yourself, nevermind your family,
>doing extremely dangerous work scrapping poisonous debris or similar
>tasks, are you?

I sure do, but I don't see why you keep this as an argument regarding
the contract manufacturing and design business. You have no clue what
you are talking about and you are trying to get one by making a far off
comparison and to tell you the truth, it isn't helping your case.

> With your reasning, the optimum solution would be to do the design
> here and manufacture in the far east. Reality check please!

Optimum? Err, as a designer you should know the difference between the
statement "a is bigger than b" and "a is optimum".

>I haven't talked about design at all. But as manufacturing generally

You have been babbling about the salaries of PCB designers for some time
so I don't understand why you now say you havn't talked about design _at all_

>involves more people, and with lower qualifications, I guess my
>reasoning does say that it there is generally more money to save by
>locating manufacturing to low income countries, than there is to save
>by locating design there.

Yes, but at the same time, if you say that design isn't cheaper over there,
why wouldn't you do the design here and manufacuring over there, just as
in a regular OEM situation? That would be optimim ie talkig the best
parts out of two solutions.

rgds,
Stefan
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 421 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 21-Jul-2004 12:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 420 (Stefan Burström):
Stefan Burström wrote:
> Johan Rönnblom wrote:
>> No. We were talking about production, not design.

Just to clarify, the statement I was answering when starting the
discussion about the "Taiwanese factor" was (comment 192):
priest: "The production @ Taiwan should be far cheaper if the German
manufacturers are living to german standards, not Taiwanese."

Keywords to note here are "far", "production", and "manufacturers".

> Huh? I kind of remember this quote from you: "Willing to do advanced
> PCB design for food and shelter?"

Sure, that's a different discussion, where I tried to explain that
salaries are not based on the cost of living. Do you want to challenge
that claim, or are you just trying to save your ruined argumentation
by mixing things up?

> The quote "a Taiwanese is not likely to ask that much less in salary
> than a German" of yours is just hilarious.

Not it's not. Well from your perspective, a factor of 2x already seems
to be "that much less", but I've explained several times why I'm
talking about something completely different. A factor of 100 would be
a lot. A factor of 10, let's discuss it. A factor of 2-5, no.

> What tailor made requirements do you need to populate a standard
> mainboard and feed it through a reflow oven?

It's more about the requirements you *don't* need. The people you
*don't* need to hire. The people who your average external firm
probably have anyway, as they are taking all kinds of orders.

> Yes, but at the same time, if you say that design isn't cheaper over
> there,

*If* that, maybe. I've never said anything like that.


[swapping this quote for last]
> Right, which is why I have based my estimate only upon the BOM.

No, you haven't. You've only given what is obviously a wild (and
incorrect) guess for one part of the BOM. Come on now, you try to tell
us that you've had a serious look at the Pegasos 1. Yet, you base your
"calculations" upon a guess that it has a quadratic(ish) shape. Well,
I don't think it takes an experienced PCB designer to tell from a
single look at the Pegasos 1 that it's not very quadratic at all.
Nothing else that you've told us either has shown that you have even
seen a Pegasos 1.

Now, when I challenge your claim that the Pegasos 1 would have been
subsidised, you ask me to calculate a BOM. Huh, I thought that was
*your* chosen method to prove your claim?

Come on, if I ran around talking about the soon to be discontinued
AmigaOne, just like that, with no qualifications or anything, I'm sure
people would (rightly) jump up and down on me asking why I'm making
such a claim. If I then replied by asking people to prove that the
AmigaOne will *not* be discontinued soon, people would, again quite
rightly, be rather mad at me. Don't you agree?
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 422 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by minator on 21-Jul-2004 12:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 402 (AdmV0rl0n):
>I did have a long conversation with someone once on the subject, and our conclusion is that
>the industry has not yet applied the engineering principles as human kind have applied
>elsewhere. One day you may get software that is fit for the purpose intended, that has
>liability, and usability with guarantees and so on.
>
>NO WARRANTY

<SNIP>

>These ideas fly in the face of peoples discussion here over the past few days. Do you know
>of any products today that are shipped and have a declaration of NO WARRANTY?

Software industry does this becaue they can get away with it, but it's changing.
There are countries where laws explicity forbid no liability claims, notably Germany.

Secondly as someone pointed out selling to consumers brings in other laws which may also deem such clauses illegal.

There is a case in the US against MS based on US consumer law, if they win the whole dynamics of the software industry will change.

That said I think liability laws are on the way for software, it's only a matter of time before those clauses are a thing of the past - if that is they have any legal standing today.

EULAs often seem to be contrary to laws but they don't seem to be tested, i.e. MS licenses say you can't sell their software second hand, this clasue my be illegal in the UK. Could you imagine a car maker forbidding the resale of a car?
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 423 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by AdmV0rl0n on 21-Jul-2004 13:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 422 (minator):
Software industry does this becaue they can get away with it, but it's changing.
There are countries where laws explicity forbid no liability claims, notably Germany.
---
So how is the GPL there allowed in products that are *sold*?
---
Secondly as someone pointed out selling to consumers brings in other laws which may also deem such clauses illegal.
---
I think it is fair to say that software, compared to many facets of human engineering is still young. Its design and creation is still IMHO experimental, with everything from the way code is written to what is used to write it being an open-ended thing.
---
There is a case in the US against MS based on US consumer law, if they win the whole dynamics of the software industry will change.
----
A dangerous senario. While I am in favour of people creating and developing ,vendors shipping products (example) like WindowsXP which is now clearly questionable in terms of merchantable quality, or Linux which defies some common logic by a blank refusal about warranty, and the upgrade cycle where people have to pay to have corrective action seem at least in a dispassionate way to be the opposite to every consumer /merchantable quality ideal.

I think eventually, some of the issues are under review and will result in better engineering, products and understanding, and that I would hope would result in people getting some kind of warranty with software..
--
That said I think liability laws are on the way for software, it's only a matter of time before those clauses are a thing of the past - if that is they have any legal standing today.
--

Would it render the GPL illegal if sold as a paid for product in those circumstances?, Would the GPL have to evolve? Would Microsoft be forced to remove WindowsXP from shop shelves if there were a version in future that had todays issues..(examples..)

--
EULAs often seem to be contrary to laws but they don't seem to be tested, i.e. MS licenses say you can't sell their software second hand, this clasue my be illegal in the UK. Could you imagine a car maker forbidding the resale of a car?

--

There are some aspects of this that I believe are going the other way. Look at the DMCA, or the EURO version of it, and you will see that it is being clearly defined that YOU the end user are RENTING under a conglomerates TERMS and conditions, another example of your rights being removed.

This is the same as with DVD where the law more and more removes your rights to make a copy or backup, on media that some magazines have tested, fails within a year, or so.
The same with CD music and copy protection, or on your game console where country after country is making it an illegal act to sell, distribute, use, or replicate mod chips.

The whole industry seems built on giving you what they want on their terms, while removing your rights, and a lot of that seems to have spilled in from the technology sides, software industry, ect, ect..
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 424 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 21-Jul-2004 13:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 415 (brotheris):
Looks other way around from my point of view.
1. There was a promise for native drivers


Sofar this remains an unknown sofar, for all we know the MOS version was the same as the 68k version using openpci.lib.

2. 68k openpci drivers worked to some extent (buggy, unfinished)

On wich Adam did receive help, but to wich he never replied with the statement that the problem remained.

3. He bought the card
4. Said reading worked, but there were some problems with drivers. No worries, because native drivers were promised.


Jens didn't promise him native drivers, see my reply to point 1

5. After 14 months user asked if bugs are going to get fixed.
6. Jens said 'sell your board on ebay'


We don't know how Adam asked this, nor do we know his exact reply, context is everything in this thing

Now this is support. he card was bought with support and promise in mind and handling of this situation was bad. Well, just look at the news item, it contains anti-MOS trolling and 'spitting' on users, despite personal disagreement with BBRV.

The only MOS related part of the newsitem is that he'll charge extra for the drivers, how is that anti-mos trolling & spitting on users?
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 425 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Stefan Burström on 21-Jul-2004 13:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 384 (Johan Rönnblom):
>They do? Please be careful before someone lumps you together with Bill

Indeed. I havn't seen any actions lately to get either MOS nor Pegasoses
on the market by bPlan. Howver, I have seen huge efforts by Genesi on this.
If you search the archives I am quite sure you will find BBRV's post explaining
how this constelation all fits together.

>McEwen just because you happened to make the browser that's shipped
>with AmigaOS4.

As long as he keeps his mouth shut regarding IBrowse, I don't have anything
to complain about. But as soon as he starts making claims about IBrowse
or sell it based on merits I don't aggree with you can be very sure I will
react. So, so far your lump argument doesn't really work on me.

>I agree, if we're talking about the average margin across the line.

Good, at least we agree on something.

>Yes. RadioShack sell Nokia products. Genesi sell bPlan products. RadioShack
>are not the only resellers of Nokia products for sure, but neither are
>Genesi the only resellers for bPlan products.

Well, how do you explain the change of Pegasos supply when Genesis main source
of income was cut (Thendic-France)? The connections are far too obvious not
to be speculated on. However, if RadioShack lost its main customer, I hardly
think that would be noticed by Nokias sales.

>So in a discussion about whether Pegasos production is subsidised or not, I
>think we can leave Genesi out. It's a different topic, interesting as it
>may be.

Well, interestingly enough, they have been the entity with money, so that's
why I left them in there.

>What do you base this on? We know that bPlan existed before Genesi. Of
>course things would have been different without Genesi, that's for sure.

Yeah, for one thing, the Pegasos boards would not have been in the same
state as they are today since bPlan would have to do alot more design house
work to keep afloat, that's for sure.
But, sure, let me reprase it. bPlan as we know it today would have looked
_alot_ different.

>And interestingly, bPlan start to ship directly to dealers, when previously
>all resales went through Genesi. I don't really think this supports your
>"symbiosis" theory.

Since you don't know how bPlan is finaced, you cannot prove anything with that
argument. What if bPlan is partially financed with VC money coming from
Genesi?

>> However, I was looking at the total BOM of the product.

>Which I guess is a natural approach considering your field of expertise,
>but it does have its weaknesses.

I approached the BOM simply because that would be the easiest one for you
to understand and also the one that would favour your opinion the most.
You do know what BOM stands for, right?

>>> Microvias between layer 1-2 and 7-8 to be able to route the BGA's.

>> There's no layer 7-8..

> Duh! You don't understand how funny you are!

>No. There is no layer 7-8, period. Obviously neither of us know the exact
>design of this PCB. You made a guess, but you were wrong.

Sigh! Either you are this stupid or you are deliberately trying not to
understand what I am talking about. There is an othermost layer on the
bottom end of a PCB. Period!!! If it is layer 8 or 6 is irrelevant. It is
still an RCC layer if RCC is used between layer 1-2. Besides, I made guess
about 8 layers, but checked the prices for 6 layers just to stay on the
safe side. So, yes, saying 8 layers was wrong, but the rest of what you
wrote is just clueless junk written by someone who doesn't have any clue about
PCB design.

>Let's say I just took your word for it? You seem to consider yourself quite
>an authority here, so I guess that should satisfy you?

Well at the same time you didn't understand that a PCB has 2 outermost layers,
one on each side and used that as an argument against me.

>And why would you do this for each run? I was under the impression that you
>were talking about per-unit costs rather than the entire investment.

It is not even sure that the same PCB manufacturer was used for the different
runs. Besides, I am quite sure that there was changes to the PCB between the
different runs just to improve producability and increase the yeild. So the
CAM preparation is most likely included for every run.

Maybe we're talking about different subjects here, but from my perspective,
the interesting thing is the marginal profit/loss. That is, the profit/loss
of producing 1 extra board, given that everything else stays the same.

I mean, of course it's true that if the only Pegasos boards ever produced
are those made and sold for MorphOS users and the odd Linux geek hardware
fan, it's not going to repay the investment. To do that, they need higher
volumes, for sure. But to me at least, the suggestion that sales would be
"subsidised" means more than just that these sales are in a way riding on
the back of an antecipated larger production. The interesting question for
me is whether making these boards helps or hurts bPlans finances. I find it
more likely than not that it helps their finances, even if it cannot run
their business in the long run.

> Right! I have seen many pictures from Phase5 but I never saw that they
> had their own PCB manufacturing too.

>No, indeed not, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do part or most of the
>work of assuring the paths are ok etc themselves.

They don't do the CAM preparation themselves. That's not how the flow looks
like when you do this. Sometimes you do the panel design yourself, but that
is not very common either. (We didn't start doing that until just recently)

>But anyway, do you know the cost of the other components involved, besides
>the PCB? I do admit that I have no clue what PPC CPUs cost, for example. It
>seems those who know aren't allowed to tell.

I seem to recall numbers in the range of 150-200 USD for 1k quantities quite
some time back. Checked some of the connectors at digi-key, they could run
for around 1-5 USD / piece, and some of them are not easy to source so they
can get quite expensive if you have to ordewr them through digi-key

>Now this is *pure* speculation, I have absolutely *no* info about this
>other than the respective pricing of the units and the well known history
>of the Peg 1, but may it not be that a certain quantity of 600MHz G3 chips
>were bought, intended for production of the Pegasos 1, before it was
>discontinued due to the decision to change northbridge?

This could be true. Note however, that these G3 cpus were bought 2 years ago
then, when wern't exactly cheap.

>Of course, if my theory is correct, we shouldn't see any more 600MHz G3
>units made now, as in that case these chips are likely to be used up by
>now.

I'd guess that the G3's today are alot cheaper to source, so that could
solve the problem. It still wouldn't prove your theory right or wrong.


[CyberstormPPC]
>> is technically more advanced (and thus more expensive to make) than the

> Lol! Care to tell us why it is technically more advanced? For a start, it
> doesn't contain a 133 MHz SDRAM bus which isn't childsplay to design.

More layers, higher component density. Well actually I intended to refer to
the BlizzardPPC, not the CyberStormPPC. You know, components on both sides,
etc. But I take your word that they probably aren't using exactly the same
software as in 1997. I certainly wouldn't have guessed on that anyway, I
just pointed out that none of us can accurately guess how much money that
would be needed for this. And anyway, we're talking about one-time
investments, not per-unit costs. You seem to like it both ways, whenever I
point to how margins can be cut, you insist on discussing only the BOM. But
when you find costs to add, you seem less strict. :-)

Anyway, what do we have now for the BOM? Say $80 + ?? + ?? + ??, or do you
have a better guess? Doesn't really allow us to draw any conclusions, now
does it?

I adopt a different strategy. I assume that the AmigaOne is not produced at
a loss. This may of course be wrong, who knows what MAI might do to keep
their only known customer. But really, I don't expect it to be sold below
production cost at any stage.

Now, without knowing about the details, we can easily see that the A1 will
be more expensive to produce. You're probably better than me at telling how
much. Then we need to add the higher cost due to licensing fees, MAI's
involvement, shipping them across the world, perhaps back and forth when
there are problems (these are not unknown for the A1..), and Eyetech. And
we also know (at least I do) that the dealers' margins are higher on the A1
- which IMO suggests that the margins are also higher upwards the chain.
Looking at it this way, The price difference between the A1 and the Pegasos
seems quite realistic to me.

Then of course there is a third way of looking at it. Personally, I would
be quite baffled if someone decided to sell boards below production cost at
these circumstances. I don't claim that everyone's rational, but when
things look just too crazy to be true, it is often the case that it's not
true.

> Reality check please! We are talking of the same components, the same
> PCBs, the same connectors here. What the Japanses manufacturers managed
> to do was to replace the whole BOM making it cheaper.

That is only part of the story. They also minimised spoilage, slimmed down
organisation, reduced storage time for parts, and made production more
efficient in many other ways. What must be noted here is that the materials
cost is not the only way to improve, rather I'd say it's the most difficult
area in most cases, probably including this one.


> As I said, the Pegasos 2 is another story and it has a different price.

Hmm, I think it's a very similar story, and it has a very similar price (G3
version).

> Well, based on the above, isn't it rather obviuous that I have done my
> homework alot more through than you?

Nope. Out of the two verifiable figures you gave (number of layers, and
size of the board) both were significantly wrong. And both these figures

Sorry, the size of the board was based on another MicroATX board. And they
number of layers isn't significantly wrong if you ask as PCB designer. Esp.
since I based the cost on a 6 layer PCB. But due to your recent nitpicking
I am not surprised you take this as an argument that you are right instead
of understanding that you should get a clue what you are talking about
instead.

>shouldn't be too hard to find out, especially the board size should be easy
>to find for anyone who's heard about google.

Well, I did find the MicroATX board using Google, smartass!

>Based on these *verified* overestimates, and your general display of a bias
>here, I don't give your overall guess much credit. And yes it can hardly be
>called anything but a guess, because you've given only a small part of the
>calculations necessary to employ your method in order to get a proper
>estimate of the total price.

So by you failing to understand the basics of PCB desin, you figure I am
wrong? Sigh, well it is impossible to argue with you anyway, I should have
figured that from the beginning. But fwiw, I calculated the PCB cost now
just because it was the easiest one to do with most chance of getting
accurate prices even 2 years back. For the NB, SB, Ethernet Phy, AC97 etc.
it would have been much harder to find the accurate numbers which I started
to look up way back.

>Well of course I know you won't accept any story that does not condemn BBRV
>as Satan incarnated as anything but apologism, but hey, that's the price of
>being balanced.

You, balanced? Give me a break! If you were this balanced, then you should
know better and stay out of discussions you obviously have no clue about.

rgds,
Stefan
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 426 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 21-Jul-2004 13:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 417 (Fabio Alemagna):
It's not an absolute claim,as i put the qualifier "i could be wrong" in it, but based on my understanding of the IT market i'm pretty sure i'm right, however, there might be differences with the European laws & Belgian laws etc.
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 427 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 21-Jul-2004 13:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 426 (Amon_Re):
"underastanding of IT maket" has got nothing to do with this issue. What matters is solely how the product was advertised and how is the license worded, nothing else matters.

So far, no one has shed light on either of the above two things, from neither parties involved. I wonder why.
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 428 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 21-Jul-2004 14:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 427 (Fabio Alemagna):
Maybe because nobody really remembers? :P
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 429 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by greenboy on 21-Jul-2004 15:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 425 (Stefan Burström):
See comment #161 by minator [http://www.ann.lu/comments2.cgi?show=1090153203&category=news&number=161#comment] - he worked for Genesi and probably did see figures. I know I saw a breakdown for the April ones - and even they were mildly but not compellingly profitable.

All the rest is speculation or trying to shoehorn the cost of other parts of the operation onto the Pegasos. But one product amortizes differently than R&D for an entire line, or OS work or wages paid to do jobs other than manufacture Pegasos. Strictly speaking, a company can look at this a number of ways, and that's where amortization comes into play. Generally "subsidizing" is considered selling something for less than the cost of parts and manufacture, and does not need to bear the burden of R&D, etc (though a company must consider how to recoupe all that and then some). So, the cost of manufacture, and parts. That would include setup time, subcontractors, wages for those doing the manufacturing, etc.

The business model for the AmigaOne seems to be considerably different. If we are going to continue to attempt to misuse the word "subsidize", this business plan could be said to be frontloaded in order to subsidize a lot of other costs that are NOT manufacture and parts. Perhaps that is to recoupe other costs - or to make a higher profit per board initially - rather than working toward competitive pricing that frankly PPC needs, to even be considered outside this community.
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 430 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Waldenberg on 21-Jul-2004 21:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 427 (Fabio Alemagna):
He just said drivers for MorphOS were to be available iirc? No more no less... Why complicate it? Maybe Jens wants to get the European Consumer Agency on his back...
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 431 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 21-Jul-2004 21:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 425 (Stefan Burström):
Stefan Burström wrote:
> I havn't seen any actions lately to get either MOS nor Pegasoses on
> the market by bPlan.

Well I have, there was a list of resellers posted here on ANN some
months ago of resellers who have bought boards directly from bPlan.

Now, I'm not really sure what your theory really looks like here. You
believe that bPlan gets a secret funding for these boards, per unit
sold, even though they are not sold through Genesi? Frankly this seems
highly conspiratorial to me. It's one thing if you think Genesi buys
the boards at an overprice from bPlan, takes a loss and sells them for
a lower price. That would be kind of nutty, but possible. But then it
would be insane for bPlan to sell the boards at a lower price directly
to dealers. Unless Genesi were still somehow secretly involved in
those sales, too. Which makes no sense at all frankly.

> As long as he [Bill McEwen] keeps his mouth shut regarding IBrowse,
> I don't have anything to complain about.

So you're saying that you don't care what McEwen does, and that you
have no problem being associated with him, as long as it's not
directed towards you personally? Even if it's blatantly illegal? Or
what are you trying to say here? Doesn't seem like you've read what
you're replying to, here.

> Well, how do you explain the change of Pegasos supply when Genesis
> main source of income was cut (Thendic-France)?

Could you be more clear here? Do you mean why the Pegasos was supplied
by bPlan directly to dealers, rather than only through Genesi as it
had been before? Well I explain that with the theory that when Genesi
had less funding, they had problems keeping their position, and bPlan
decided to find other customers too. Again - not supportive of your
"symbiosis" theory.

> Since you don't know how bPlan is financed, you cannot prove
> anything with that argument. What if bPlan is finaced with VC money
> coming from Genesi?

I'm sure they are, or have been. At least that's the impression I got.
But I'm not the one having to "prove" things here. You came with a
theory that there would be something fishy going on - you prove it.

Anyway, just because AmigaInc were financed by one Pentti Kouri, who
interestingly became a big player by fooling Finnish banks and
ultimately the Finnish taxpayers of several hundred million FIM,
doesn't mean they are somehow in symbiosis with dr Kouri. In fact, it
seems he left the ship quite a while ago, even though I get the
definite impression he put more money into AInc than Genesi ever spent
on bPlan.

Anyway, this really has no bearing on whether the Pegasos boards would
be subsidised or not. It just tells us that *if* they would be
subsidised, the money *may* come from Genesi. But I think you'd better
back up the former statement before you move on to speculate about the
latter..

> You do know what BOM stands for, right?

Presumably you mean the MBOM rather than the EBOM. But let's just call
it cost of materials, as I've done thus far, as I really see no reason
to exclude those readers who aren't comfortable with these terms.
Though I can't help the feeling that you're not really trying to
communicate, but that your aim is rather to cause confusion.

> Either you are this stupid or you are deliberately trying not to
> understand what I'm talking about. There is an othermost layer on
> the bottom end of a PCB.

I'm deliberately refusing to let you get away with the fact that out
of the *two* parameters you've told us as basis for your estimate of
the Pegasos PCB cost, both were significantly wrong. I'm sure you can
write several pages about how PCBs are made. It might even be
interesting. But it's not very relevant here and it's pretty obvious
that you insist on talking about this just to change subject.

Now, I may not know such a lot about PCB design or manufacturing, but
I do know that the size and the number of layers does matter quite a
lot. I've never questioned that you know more about PCB design than
me, this has never been at issue. The only thing I've questioned is
your guess of the Pegasos PCB cost, which was obviously flawed.

> Well at the same time you didn't understand that a PCB has 2
> outermost layers, one on each side, and used that as an argument
> against me.

I did *what*? Quote me, please. I'd much prefer if you read what I
write before you answer. I've claimed that it's cheaper to do PCB
design in Europe than in Taiwan? I've claimed that PCBs do not have 2
outer layers? Really? Quote me or stop these silly claims.

> It is not even sure that the same PCB manufacturer was used for the
> different runs.

Of course not. It is also not sure that they bought the cheapest PCBs
available. The PCBs may in fact have cost $500 a piece. But then
again, maybe not. If you're trying to prove that the product is
subsidised in this way, however, you'll have to estimate the *minimum*
costs. Unless you can support the idea that they used a more expensive
method, you'll just have to assume that they got a good deal.

> Besides, I am quite sure that there was changes to the PCB between
> the different runs just to improve producability and increase the
> yield. So the CAM preparation is most likely included for every run.

I'm quite sure that they only did such changes if it was economical.

[cost of PPC chips]
> I seem to recall numbers in the range of 150-200USD for 1k
> quantities quite some time back.

Right. As prices drop with time, this means that we have a maximum
estimate of the price for these components. Too bad that what you need
for your theory is a minimum estimate..

> Note however, that these G3 cpus were bought 2 years ago then, when
> wern't exactly cheap.

Well, that's what we're talking about anyway, as you insist on
discussing the Pegasos 1.

> I'd guess that the G3's sold today are alot cheaper to source, so
> that could solve the problem. It still wouldn't prove your theory
> right or wrong.

I assume you mean my "stock of G3s" theory. Well no, this seems hard
to prove, I agree. But if we don't see any more 600MHz units in the
future, I think it would lend my theory some support.

> Esp since I based the cost on a 6 layer PCB. But due to your recent
> nitpicking [..]

Fine, let's assume you did suggest the price for a 100 insq board
with 6 layers, rather than 8. Is it nitpicking to point out that you
were wrong about these basic factors? Please. As you're not telling
much about your assumptions, if I want to apply a critical look, of
course I have to look at the assumptions you do tell us about. If
these turn out to be wrong, of course it affects my confidence for
your estimate generally.

> So by you failing to understand the basics of PCB desin, you figure
> I am wrong?

How many pages are you going to write about my supposed "failure" to
understand some basic feature of PCB design, that I haven't written a
single statement about? And by the way, how would it matter whether I
understand the "basics of PCB design" or not? Unless you want to claim
that the "basics of PCB design" somehow dictate that no 6-layered
63sqin PCB can ever be produced below a cost of $300, it doesn't help
you much in this argument. But I guess you can always display your
knowledge about this subject and hope that some will then just keep on
and swallow your other claims.

> For the NB, SB, Ethernet Phy, AC97 etc. it would have been much
> harder to find the accurate numbers which I started to look up way
> back.

Ah. So now you say that you made such calculations, but you lost them.
Or?

Well, let's sum up your argument here. You said the Pegasos 1 was
subsidised. It seems to me that we agreed that this statement means
that the production price would be lower or equal to the price bPlan
charge from resellers (Genesi or whoever, presumably).

So what we have is:

production price >= sales price

We then agreed that the sales price could be estimated to $300. So
your argument then looks like

production price >= $300

Now, you wanted to talk about material costs. These are of course not
the only costs. So we have:

materials cost + other costs >= $300

We know that "other costs" are above zero, but we haven't made any
estimates of it. So thus far, your calculation has to be

materials cost + X >= $300

Now of course this is a rather hefty approximation, I agree. But it's
not useless - if you can show that the materials cost is indeed above
$300, you've proven your point, without having to get into the other
costs involved. But as you haven't done that, this is what we have at
this stage.

Now, we have further subdivided the materials cost into subcosts,
making the equation:

PCB cost + CPU cost + connectors cost + other materials cost + X >=
$300

For the PCB cost, you claimed "more than $100", but for a PCB size
which was significantly wrong. Well, you do your own work, I'll scale
it linearly down to "more than $63" for now. For the CPU, you claimed
"less than $200". For connecors, you claimed "around $1-5 / piece"
from a certain vendor. But that didn't really sound like the minimum
price, rather it sounds like the first price you found. I'm also not
sure exactly which connectors you were talking about, how many they
would be. Let's say 10 connectors at $2 each for our minimum estimate.

Then the equation looks like this:

$63 + (c < $200) + $20 + X >= $300

Now, what do we do about the (c < $200)? As we have no minimum bounds
we have to include it in X, so:

$62 + $20 + X >= $300

or

X >= $218

Well. To support your theory, you know need to show that all those
costs we put into X are larger than or equal to about $218. Before
you've done this, all your talk about PCBs really doesn't do anything
to prove your statement.
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 432 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 21-Jul-2004 22:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 431 (Johan Rönnblom):
Sorry, seems I stole a dollar there. Not intentional. :)
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 433 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Ketzer on 22-Jul-2004 04:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 431 (Johan Rönnblom):
> X >= $218

CPU
Shipping
Support
Updates (April)

While we may accept that $218 dollar is/was enough to pay for this (imo it isnt) it doesnt yet include the proportinate costs of boards that have been sold at special prices, r&d and possible license costs. And were not even started with associated costs regarding advertising and promotion(fairs). Wages for people involved would have to be, at least in part, calculated too (if you plan to pay them).
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 434 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Ketzer on 22-Jul-2004 04:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 433 (Ketzer):
I understand that you were talking about pure production prices, and i wont comment on those, but there *are* a lot of other costs involved which this price cant possibly pay for.
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 435 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Stefan Burström on 22-Jul-2004 06:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 431 (Johan Rönnblom):
>Well I have, there was a list of resellers posted here on ANN some
>months ago of resellers who have bought boards directly from bPlan.

Right. Come one! That's as much marketing effort as Amiga Inc has
been doing for the past 2 years. (Ie. next to nothing)

Now, I'm not really sure what your theory really looks like here. You
believe that bPlan gets a secret funding for these boards, per unit
sold, even though they are not sold through Genesi? Frankly this seems
highly conspiratorial to me. It's one thing if you think Genesi buys
the boards at an overprice from bPlan, takes a loss and sells them for
a lower price. That would be kind of nutty, but possible. But then it
would be insane for bPlan to sell the boards at a lower price directly
>to dealers. Unless Genesi were still somehow secretly involved in
>those sales, too. Which makes no sense at all frankly.

Well, below you are also supporting the idea that Genesi may be
fundinf bPlan. Well, if they don't need to fund bPlan, why care at
all? After all, funding a company usually pays off in the ende
where as paying an overprice usually doesnt'. Guess which way I was
thinking this would work???

> As long as he [Bill McEwen] keeps his mouth shut regarding IBrowse,
> I don't have anything to complain about.

>So you're saying that you don't care what McEwen does, and that you
>have no problem being associated with him, as long as it's not
>directed towards you personally? Even if it's blatantly illegal? Or
>what are you trying to say here? Doesn't seem like you've read what
>you're replying to, here.

Sigh! You are incredible! You have twisted and turned every word around
that I have written without _any_ intention whatsoever to understand
what I mean. You are just doing this for the sake of proving me wrong
even if it comes at the price of proving a missunderstanding wrong.
What I meant was that I personally don't care ie am not going to spend
2 seconds on whatever McEwen does. It is simply not worth it! Whatever
good or bad he has done for Amiga and Amiga Inc. is his business and
I have no intention whatseover to get into a discussion defending him
or accusing him because that is a loose loose situation. Others can do
that if that pleases them. HOWEVER, if he drags me into such a
discussion with IBrowsee, THEN I will most likely have comments.
Until then, he is perfectly able to take responsibility of his own
actions (don't get me wrong on this one too). And I don't need to
explain to you whether or not I like them to make myself credible? Agreed?

>had less funding, they had problems keeping their position, and bPlan
>decided to find other customers too. Again - not supportive of your
>"symbiosis" theory.

From bPlan's point of view, why wouldn't they want to find as many customers
as possible from the very start?
Shall I spell it out for you? When the whole Thendic-France thing appeared,
all of a sudden the supply of Pegasos boards dropped. It may have been a
coincidence or not. But hey, that's what I am basing my 'theory on'
Besides, you support it yourself below too :-)

> Since you don't know how bPlan is financed, you cannot prove
> anything with that argument. What if bPlan is finaced with VC money
> coming from Genesi?

>I'm sure they are, or have been. At least that's the impression I got.

Lol! And then you don't understand 'symbiosis'. Well, lets see we have
(possibly) company funding another. We have the other company producing
products which the first company is marketing and selling (to ShopIp)
That's what I meant by symbiosis, it wasn't any more complicated than
that.

>theory that there would be something fishy going on - you prove it.

Well, you proved it for me. (or at least made it likely)

>Anyway, just because AmigaInc were financed by one Pentti Kouri, who
>interestingly became a big player by fooling Finnish banks and
>ultimately the Finnish taxpayers of several hundred million FIM,
>doesn't mean they are somehow in symbiosis with dr Kouri. In fact, it

Never heard dr Kouri selling Amiga Incs products or seen him writing here
on ann that AmigaDE is way better than Symbian or anything else incredibly
stupid. However, I have seen certain Genesi representatives here. See the
difference?

> You do know what BOM stands for, right?

>Presumably you mean the MBOM rather than the EBOM. But let's just call
>it cost of materials, as I've done thus far, as I really see no reason
>to exclude those readers who aren't comfortable with these terms.
>Though I can't help the feeling that you're not really trying to
>communicate, but that your aim is rather to cause confusion.

I have been speaking of the cost of the components and BOM in several
posts, so I figured you'd learned the word by now. It was just a check
to see if you had. Sorry if you took it as an offence. And btw, yes
to be more specific, it is the BOM that I am refering to, ie just the parts.

>I'm deliberately refusing to let you get away with the fact that out
>of the *two* parameters you've told us as basis for your estimate of
>the Pegasos PCB cost, both were significantly wrong. I'm sure you can
>write several pages about how PCBs are made. It might even be
>interesting. But it's not very relevant here and it's pretty obvious
>that you insist on talking about this just to change subject.

If you had been more carefull with your reading you would have notcied
that one of the estimates was spot on if you include the margins I gave.

>Now, I may not know such a lot about PCB design or manufacturing, but
>I do know that the size and the number of layers does matter quite a
>lot. I've never questioned that you know more about PCB design than
>me, this has never been at issue. The only thing I've questioned is
>your guess of the Pegasos PCB cost, which was obviously flawed.

Hehe, yeah and you so coveniently forgot to point out that I didn't
mention the 2 other needed PCB's to build a Pegasos.

> Well at the same time you didn't understand that a PCB has 2
> outermost layers, one on each side, and used that as an argument
> against me.

>I did *what*? Quote me, please. I'd much prefer if you read what I
>write before you answer. I've claimed that it's cheaper to do PCB
>design in Europe than in Taiwan? I've claimed that PCBs do not have 2
>outer layers? Really? Quote me or stop these silly claims.

Now you really owe me an appology, because here is the qoute:
(I hade to put 2 messages back together since you so conviniently left out
the important parts)

>>>> 6 or 8 layers I'd guess.
>>> Six, I think it has been stated, at least not more.
>>Ok, say 6 then.
>>>> Microvias between layer 1-2 and 7-8 to be able to route the BGA's.
>>>There's no layer 7-8..
>>Duh! You don't understand how funny you are! If you have microvias between
>No. There is no layer 7-8, period.

I guessed between 6-8 layers and you say I overestimate??? The lower limit
was spot on. Then I was refering to the outerlayers and instead of writing
"layer 7-8 or layer 5-6 depending on the amount of layers" I wrote layer
7-8 in hope that people would understand that I was refering to the outermost
layer. You gave me no credit whatsoever for assuming that 6 was correct,
instead you are talking about "You made a guess, but you were wrong".
Well, mr Rönnblom, neither of the guesses 6-8 or that the PCB has an
outermost layer was wrong. You are just twisting my words in hope that
someone will forget what I wrote. Besides as I have said I based the price
on a 6 layer run as I have said before but you seem to forget about that all
the time because that is something you cannot nitpick on!

>I'm quite sure that they only did such changes if it was economical.

Yeah, and to fix the SDRAM interface :-)

>> Note however, that these G3 cpus were bought 2 years ago then, when
>> wern't exactly cheap.

>Well, that's what we're talking about anyway, as you insist on
>discussing the Pegasos 1.

I insist on it because I am not claiming that the Pegasos 2 is subsidised.
Simple eh? This whole subsidised story started with the Pegasos 1 and
back then I supported it and did some homework.

>I assume you mean my "stock of G3s" theory. Well no, this seems hard
>to prove, I agree. But if we don't see any more 600MHz units in the
>future, I think it would lend my theory some support.

Right, but otoh, the prices of those CPU's will probably drop even
further so it may be economical to keep selling those boards with
new cpu's.

> Esp since I based the cost on a 6 layer PCB. But due to your recent
> nitpicking [..]

>Fine, let's assume you did suggest the price for a 100 insq board
>with 6 layers, rather than 8. Is it nitpicking to point out that you
>were wrong about these basic factors? Please. As you're not telling

Since you obviously never saw the 'Ok, say 6 then.' qoute from me I can
only assume that you are nitpicking.


> So by you failing to understand the basics of PCB desin, you figure
> I am wrong?

>understand the "basics of PCB design" or not? Unless you want to claim
>that the "basics of PCB design" somehow dictate that no 6-layered
>63sqin PCB can ever be produced below a cost of $300, it doesn't help

I never said that the PCB alone would cost more than $300. But hey, I am
getting used of you misqouting me.

>Ah. So now you say that you made such calculations, but you lost them.
>Or?

I started building a BOM way back yes. I guess I still have the draft
somewhere on my old A4K. I never got that far as checking prices for
the more advanced chips though.

>For the PCB cost, you claimed "more than $100", but for a PCB size
>which was significantly wrong. Well, you do your own work, I'll scale
>it linearly down to "more than $63" for now. For the CPU, you claimed

63 USD sounds too low for that kind of PCB. But hey, that's just my
sense on the subject with my experience take it or leave it.

>"less than $200". For connecors, you claimed "around $1-5 / piece"
>from a certain vendor. But that didn't really sound like the minimum
>price, rather it sounds like the first price you found. I'm also not

Given someone who designs electronics, don't you think that I look at
the right place right away :)
Digi-key is like Elfa. You find most parts there and they can supply
you quickly, but they may not have the cheapest price. (But may be
the only one selling to you in sub 1000 numbers)

>sure exactly which connectors you were talking about, how many they
>would be. Let's say 10 connectors at $2 each for our minimum estimate.

There are 3-4 PCI connectors, 1 AGP connector, Backplate connectors,
2 sdram connectors, 1 cpu module. The CPU board -> CPU module connector.
The CPU module -> mainboard connector, ide connectors. Well, just
have a look at the pictures on the net and you'll see. Oh, well, then
you might also realize that the mainboard isn't the only PCB that needs
to be payed for when producing the board. There are 2 more boards.
I guess we are getting closer and closer to my 100 sq inch estimate
the more we look at it :-)

>Well. To support your theory, you know need to show that all those
>costs we put into X are larger than or equal to about $218. Before
>you've done this, all your talk about PCBs really doesn't do anything
>to prove your statement.

I started out with the PCB to get a starting point of the discussion.
You obviously didn't want to start there since you obviously are afraid
of the answer. Instead you started nitpicking on things you have no
clue about and corrected a few things. However, you forgot to correct
the obvious fact that there are 3 PCB's involved (not counting the April
one though) when making a Pegasos incl CPU. My guess whas that the PCB's
alone would be around 100USD which is a claim that I still stand by. And
I find it hard to believe that a board like this would have a PCB with
a cost of 1/3th of the total BOM.
I see no point disucssing this further than the PCB with you though
since you obviously don't even want to TRY to understand. But if you
are interested, you can start looking up prices for all the caps
on the boards. (I won't count them for you because you will get to
me for that one too I guess)

rgds,
Stefan
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 436 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by AdmV0rl0n on 22-Jul-2004 08:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 435 (Stefan Burström):
Hi Stefan,

You are aware that the person you are arguing with has taken the Genesi Shilling previously? And has a record of arguing in their favour no matter what facts, realities, or occurances take place?

In other words, I think you could go blue in the face and it still won't make sense to the 'Genesi staff/ex staff'....
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 437 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Stefan Burström on 22-Jul-2004 08:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 436 (AdmV0rl0n):
Hi!
>You are aware that the person you are arguing with has taken the Genesi
>Shilling previously? And has a record of arguing in their favour no matter
>what facts, realities, or occurances take place?

No really? I even tried to point that out to him, but he didn't understand
why. Glad that I am not the only one who have noted this about him.

>In other words, I think you could go blue in the face and it still won't make
>sense to the 'Genesi staff/ex staff'....

He'll say that he is neither, but I guess it is fair to point out that he is
included in the .... category.
Besides, that's a nice strategy. Until everyone is blue, argue with them
until they turn blue in their face. At least then they can say that they
have turned everyone blue :-)

regards,
Stefan
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 438 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 22-Jul-2004 13:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 435 (Stefan Burström):
Stefan Burström wrote:
> Johan Rönnblom wrote:
>> Well I have, there was a list of resellers posted here on ANN some
>> months ago of resellers who have bought boards directly from bPlan.

> Right. Come one! That's as much marketing effort as Amiga Inc has
> been doing for the past 2 years.

So? The point is that they are selling to other parties, not just to
Genesi. Which means that you have to explain why bPlan would want to
do such a thing, if Genesi are the ones subsidising the boards. Well,
as you're now clearly saying that you don't claim that the Pegasos 2
is subsidised, this point is moot.

However, this really seems to me like you're chickening out, as the
Pegasos 2 is obviously quite similar to the Pegasos 1, and it would
have to take a *very* good estimate of the Pegasos 1 production cost
to make it a bad guess for the Pegasos 2 production cost.

As for Genesi funding bPlan, it really has no bearing on whether
boards would be subsidised or not. Regardless how many gazillion
dollars bPlan may have received from Genesi, it still wouldn't make
sense for bPlan to sell boards below production cost.

[about McEwen]
> And I don't have to explain to you whether or not I like them to
> make myself credible? Agreed?

Exactly. If I were trying to lump you together with him like that, it
would make you a bit upset, it seems. Well, then don't do the same to
others, they might get upset too, you know.

> When the whole Thendic-France thing appeared, all of a sudden the
> supply of Pegasos boards dropped.

What? As I visited Thendic France just before the first Pegasos were
shipped, this makes no sense. Pegasos boards have been supplied while
Thendic France existed, and after they went bankrupt, but not before
they appeared. But maybe you're referring to the bankruptcy? Strange
then, because I believe most Pegasos boards have been supplied after
that bankruptcy, and certainly after Thendic effectively ceased to be
a factor during late fall 2003.

> However I have seen certain Genesi representatives here. See the
> difference?

Yes, dr Kouri has invested in AInc, but he has not, at least not under
his own name, taken part in on-line discussions about it. And this is
relevant for exactly what?

> If you had been more carefull with your reading you would have
> notcied that one of the estimates was spot on if you include the
> margins I gave.

Which one, the $100 estimate or, eh, the $100 estimate?

Now you're saying that this estimate was for a six layer board, which
is interesting considering how your main assumption was obviously 8
layers before. But go ahead, make your claims. When you have made a
claim that, if true, would show that the Pegasos 1 was subsidised, we
can start to look a little closer at it. At the moment you don't have
any such claim except "I find it hard to believe", ie you're
just guessing.

> Hehe, yeah and you so conveniently forgot to point out that I didn't
> mention the 2 other needed PCB's to build a Pegasos.

Why should I? You're the one trying to show that the BOM for the
Pegasos 1 would be too high, not I.

> Now you really owe me an appology, because here is the qoute:
> (I had to put 2 messages back together since you so conveniently
> left out the important parts)

You mean you had to forge the quote because I never said what you just
claimed that I said. Because I "conveniently" left out the irrelevant
parts.

> Johan Rönnblom did not answer this with:
>> Stefan Burström wrote
>>> Johan Rönnblom wrote:
>>>> Stefan Burström wrote:
>>>>> 6 or 8 layers I'd guess.
>>>> Six, I think it has been stated, at least not more.
>>> Ok, say 6 then.
>>>>> Microvias between layer 1-2 and 7-8 to be able to route the
>>>>> BGA's.
>>>> There's no layer 7-8..
>>> Duh! You don't understand how funny you are! If you have microvias
>>> between
>> No. There is no layer 7-8, period.

Johan Rönnblom *really* replied to:
> Stefan Burström:
>> Duh! You don't understand how funny you are!
> No. There is no layer 7-8, period.

What you're doing here is that first you say that the board may have
6-8 layers, but then you rapidly go on to assume that it has the more
expensive 8 layers after all. This gets rather funny when you place
the microvias in thin air, which probably means nothing to me as you'd
say "I really meant between the outermost layers", but to any outside
observer it illustrates quite clearly how you go on with your
speculation much further than your knowledge about the Pegasos 1
allows you to do. If you *really* wanted to do a low estimate, you
would have assumed it had 6 layers. But that's not what you wanted,
obviously.

>> Unless you want to claim that the "basics of PCB design" somehow
>> dictate that no 6-layered 63sqin PCB can ever be produced below a
>> cost of $300, it doesn't help.

> I never said that the PCB alone would cost more than $300. But hey,
> I am getting used of you misqouting me.

Misquote? Where, please? Is "unless you want to state" too advanced
English for you to grasp? So you do not want to state that, fine. Then
what I claim above, and still do, is that all your "PCB design basics"
argumentation does *nothing* to support your case.

And btw, it's spelt "quote", not "qoute". And you're not allowed to
quote people by cutting and pasting together different messages making
it seem like people made different statements than they really did.

> Given someone who designs electronics, don't you think that I look
> at the right place right away :)
> Digi-key is like Elfa. You find most parts there and they can suply
> you quickly, but they may not have the cheapest price. (But may be
> the only one selling you in sub 1000 numbers)

So obviously you're looking at the wrong place right away, as this
doesn't give you any low estimate at all.

Come on, you're claiming that the Pegasos 1 can't have been made cheap
enough to be sold at the price it had. Now, can you just for a second
imagine that you might be wrong, here. Is that possible for you, or
are you really just Samface in disguise? Ok, let's assume you can. Now
how would it be possible, then? Well, obviously one reason could be
that bPlan somehow managed to source their parts very cheaply. Then,
obviously, they would not buy them from Digi-key. So again, you have a
high estimate, which is not very useful, as Digi-key probably have
huge margins on at least some of their products, as they seem to base
their market on being able to supply a few components quickly, in
cases where it really doesn't matter to most customers if they cost
two dollars or twenty cents.

> My guess whas that the PCB's alone would be around 100USD which is
> a claim that I still stand by.

Ok, and divided upon the three PCB's, how would these 100USD be
distributed roughly? I'm asking because there's no use showing how the
main board could be made for $50 if you could just claim that "yeah,
but it would still be $100 in total".

Anyway, until you've reached those $300 we agreed upon, you don't even
have an argument here. It's more like, you give an estimate of one of
the most expensive parts, then you wave your hands and imply that
the total will reach some unspecified sum.

> I see no point discussing this further than the PCB with you though
> since you obviously don't even want to TRY to understand.

How could I "understand" when all you're offering are guesses and "I
find it hard to believe"s? If you want to show that the Pegasos 1 was
too expensive to produce, you'll have to back this up. You chose to do
it by going into the BOM. Fair enough. But when you're unable to
even estimate a BOM that proves your point, you're chickening out it
seems.

Stefan Burström wrote:
> AdmVOrlOn wrote:
>> You are aware that the person you are arguing with has taken the
>> Genesi shilling previously? And has a record of arguing in their
>> favour no matter what facts, realities or occurances take place?

> No really? I even tried to point that out to him, but he didn't
> understand why.

Given that I've never taken a single cent from Genesi, it is a little
hard to understand. And even if I had, you don't get more ad hominem
than this. Well I think you just lost this argument for good.

Forging my quotes, lying about me, going into personal attacks when
you don't "want" (can't?) support your theory with facts. How nice!
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 439 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by AdmV0rl0n on 22-Jul-2004 13:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 438 (Johan Rönnblom):
Did you not state here and elsewhere that you had also suffeed from Genesi's money flow problems, but that you unlike others had found them to be acceptable?

I'm sorry if I got something wrong, I was sure you had stated something in those terms in previous postings related to Genesi not paying staff etc etc. Please clarify. I don't want to go grab old posts, but I will go take a peek.
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 440 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by AdmV0rl0n on 22-Jul-2004 13:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 438 (Johan Rönnblom):
Erm, I am confused. Did you write this or not?

http://www.flyingmice.com/cgi-bin/squidcgi/mbmessage.pl/amiga/98439.shtml

Not to press the point too much, but Genesi staff, ex staff, or representatives who lie in public, or try to make me out to be a liar nominally don't get away with it. I trust you will withdraw or amend your latest statement CAREFULLY, and perhaps consider an apology to both Stefan and myself, whom neither of lied or tried to mislead on your relations with Genesi - as you just claimed.
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 441 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by JKD on 22-Jul-2004 13:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 297 (Jens Schönfeld):
Jens,
I think it's fairly simple from your point of view, you discontinued support for the product. From a users perspective...I'm note sure when you posted this information in public.

I always had problems with my CW MK3 on the Peg 1, stuck or hanging mounts. I never emailed you about them because I simply made the assumption that these bugs were so obvious and that the code was still being worked on => This is also simple, I made bad assumptions and only have myself to blame for not contacting you. Of course, why you never fixed the bugs I don't know...since I am speakign in a timeframe of when MorphOS support existed. (I was one of the few people who wanted to support your effort of flying all the way to the US west coast in for Amiwest 2003 and therefore bought a CW MK3 direct from you at the stand!)

Nearly a year later, I have a Peg 2 and find a problem (you have my emails)..for what it's worth I found your replies courteous. I still expect to find an answer to my problem but it seems if the answer lies in some problem with multidisk.device them I'm out of luck and must sell the MK3 right?

Regards,

Steve
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 442 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 22-Jul-2004 14:16 GMT
In reply to Comment 439 (AdmV0rl0n):
AdmVOrlOn:

I was just going to post you that link. Read it, rather than call me a
liar, will you?

Maybe you didn't lie about me, maybe you just made a honest mistake. I
still don't like people doing ad hominem attacks on me with false
information, however, so I'd very much like to see an excuse.

To sum your erroneous assumptions (assuming they are mistakes rather
than deliberate lies) up:

a) I never took a single cent from Genesi.

b) While I was promised money from Thendic, received part of it but
not most, I certainly did not find that acceptable. Rather, I found it
so unacceptable that, I quote the end of that posting: "I do not
recommend anyone to take a position with Genesi currently, unless they
are offered (and given) advance payment. This is not because Genesi is
completely broke, because it's not, but because BBRV will not disclose
enough information to make it possible to make an independent
judgement of the chances to get paid, and because BBRV's judgement on
this matter clearly cannot be trusted."

Why Genesi? Well, because BBRV were the ones who talked me into doing
business with Thendic, and when things went wrong, which I suspected
rather early last autumn, they didn't take a responsible attitude.

c) To the best of my knowledge, there was at the time of that post no
other person unpaid by Thendic or Genesi who had made any public
complaints about it. So when you say "you unlike others had found them
acceptable" you're doubly wrong. I was the *first* person to publicly
complain. Since then, we have Dale Rahn. Christian Kemp has hinted a
few things but as far as I know, never made any direct statement, so I
don't know if he's still unpaid, or what he thinks about this. Then we
have Jens' disagreement of course. I don't know of any more even
today.

d) It's rather hilarious that you claim that a person who publicly
recommends against doing business with Genesi would somehow, for this
very reason, be suspicious for being in alliance with them. You think
BBRV pay me to detract people from working for them?
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 443 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by AdmV0rl0n on 22-Jul-2004 14:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 442 (Johan Rönnblom):
I was just going to post you that link. Read it, rather than call me a
liar, will you?
-----
I am sorry, putting aside the mirky waters of Thendic, Genesi, and whatever other smokescreen, you worked for Genesi, Previously known as Thendic:
Paris, France - November 23, 2002 Thendic-France SARL and bplan GmbH of Frankfurt, Germany have reached an agreement to merge and form a new company. The name of the new Company will be "Genesi". Genesi was incorporated this week under the supervision of PricewaterhouseCoopers in Luxembourg. Separately, Thendic-France has completed the necessary legal and financial steps to separate itself from Pretory USA Inc. and be acquired by Genesi. Genesi will begin operations from Luxembourg on 1 January 2003. The Pegasos is the new alternative in the PPC computing environment.
---

Maybe you didn't lie about me, maybe you just made a honest mistake. I
still don't like people doing ad hominem attacks on me with false
information, however, so I'd very much like to see an excuse.
---
I'm not lying, you worked with Thendic, now called Genesi. Therefore, despite your protests, yes, you worked for that camp, you took that camps money, and most often round here you can be seen defending said camp. I call it like I see it. And I can't be called a liar based on your technical get out clause.
---
To sum your erroneous assumptions (assuming they are mistakes rather
than deliberate lies) up:
---
Hey read your own posts, jesus christ, claiming you are not of that camp and have never taken the coin, what is it about you people.

---
a) I never took a single cent from Genesi.

OK, IF I were to accept that you did not take monies from GENESI, it would only be that you did not take money from them while called 'Genesi' and only while called 'Thendic', which is true, but Thendic became Genesi, so you did take monies, you merely now argue the toss on a technicality.
---
b) While I was promised money from Thendic, received part of it but
not most, I certainly did not find that acceptable. Rather, I found it
so unacceptable that, I quote the end of that posting: "I do not
recommend anyone to take a position with Genesi currently, unless they
are offered (and given) advance payment. This is not because Genesi is
completely broke, because it's not, but because BBRV will not disclose
enough information to make it possible to make an independent
judgement of the chances to get paid, and because BBRV's judgement on
this matter clearly cannot be trusted."
^^^^
One would wonder how you dare to post this while claiming not to work for them. If you did'nt work for them or take monies from them, how can you comment? The truth is YOU are trying to prove you can get away with lies and technicalities. You advised others not to join Genesi, because YOU WERE AN EMPLOYEE, even if it is only under the old name of 'Thendic', and as I am sure you are aware, companies that change name, ownership etc keep the employees, have to pay employees, etc etc.
---
Why Genesi? Well, because BBRV were the ones who talked me into doing
business with Thendic, and when things went wrong, which I suspected
rather early last autumn, they didn't take a responsible attitude.

Indeed. Much discussed.
---
c) To the best of my knowledge, there was at the time of that post no
other person unpaid by Thendic or Genesi who had made any public
complaints about it. So when you say "you unlike others had found them
acceptable" you're doubly wrong. I was the *first* person to publicly
complain. Since then, we have Dale Rahn. Christian Kemp has hinted a
few things but as far as I know, never made any direct statement, so I
don't know if he's still unpaid, or what he thinks about this. Then we
have Jens' disagreement of course. I don't know of any more even
today.

I would say that paragraph is questionable, and loaded, to say the least. But putting it aside, you were not nor are alone in having queries, but it has little to do with your comments recently. You were an employee, and I have found this wriggling to evade that troubling? Why bother? I just don't get it.
---
d) It's rather hilarious that you claim that a person who publicly
recommends against doing business with Genesi would somehow, for this
very reason, be suspicious for being in alliance with them. You think
BBRV pay me to detract people from working for them?

No, I don't understand why it is ok for you to raise questions about Genesi, and yet to bluster, bullshit, lie, decieve, argue with, denounce, attack, smear, bemuse, anyone else who raises any such questions. Therefore, when people raise issues, perhaps even in areas such as Stefans where the person has an understanding of the subject, and you defend Genesi, or create smokescreens, bullshit, or lies, I just DON'T GET IT. Even now, you have resorted to deeply questionable statements or innuendo like you never worked for them, had no connections, never took the coin, simply to try and backup your arguments on a subject.

If your line is that you never worked for them, and you wanna continue with such bullshit, I won't be discussing further with you. I've had my fill of Genesi and ex Genesi serial liars long before you started with this. And bear in mind Genesi were happy pointing the finger at those serial liars at Amiga Inc, quite rightly, but I'm not a fan, and applying Amiga-A-Like-Policies to Genesi is going to get them nothing.
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 444 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 22-Jul-2004 15:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 443 (AdmV0rl0n):
Admvorlon: You're obviously not a very nice person.

Let's say it like this. A couple of days ago, I sent a letter to the
liquidator for Thendic France. I'm trying to negotiate a way to get
the work I did while contracted (never employed) by Thendic free from
the bankruptcy.

Of course, Genesi is not involved in this in any way, shape or form.
Genesi has no rights for the work I did for Thendic. They never paid
me anything. If I offered my work to Genesi, without entering an
agreement with Thendic's liquidator, I would be committing fraud
against Thendic.

Now, you may say all you want about Genesi being one and the same
thing as Thendic. That would in many ways have been convenient for me,
as I wouldn't have this problem. But it's not the case and I'm not
going to commit the crime I would do if I followed your reasoning. And
btw, I'm not likely to sell my work to Genesi, if I can disentangle it
from Thendic, as Genesi aren't likely to have any use for it since
their business plan is rather different than the one Thendic had. And
that's even before we get to my disagreements with BBRV..
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 445 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 22-Jul-2004 16:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 444 (Johan Rönnblom):
Read that yet? Now, can I have your apologies, please? Your rudeness
in comment 443 is frankly unbelievable.
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 446 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Stefan Burström on 22-Jul-2004 16:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 438 (Johan Rönnblom):
>However, this really seems to me like you're chickening out, as the
>Pegasos 2 is obviously quite similar to the Pegasos 1, and it would

Why should I need to chicken out?

>have to take a *very* good estimate of the Pegasos 1 production cost
>to make it a bad guess for the Pegasos 2 production cost.

For a start, this discussion started years ago with other component
prices than today. So let's say we were able to show a 10 USD
profit on each Pegasos 2 board sold today, would that say anything
about the profit of the Pegasos 1, 1.5 year ago???

>As for Genesi funding bPlan, it really has no bearing on whether
>boards would be subsidised or not. Regardless how many gazillion
>dollars bPlan may have received from Genesi, it still wouldn't make
>sense for bPlan to sell boards below production cost.

No really? Get more boards out to attract developers? How many
boards were sold or given out to developers? Wouldn't you say
the free boards were subsidised? An easy way to build a market
is to make sure enough people are using your products. When the
volume go up in the end, your manufacturing price drops and you
make a profit. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come up
with that business plan.

>What? As I visited Thendic France just before the first Pegasos were
>shipped, this makes no sense. Pegasos boards have been supplied while
>Thendic France existed, and after they went bankrupt, but not before
>they appeared. But maybe you're referring to the bankruptcy? Strange
>then, because I believe most Pegasos boards have been supplied after
>that bankruptcy, and certainly after Thendic effectively ceased to be
>a factor during late fall 2003.

We were talking about Pegasos 1 wern't we? Dunno, but afaik, that board
wasn't produced or shipped at all during late fall 2003. So there goes
your 'Pegasoes were shipping after the bankruptcy' theory. And just
because Pegasos boards were shipped before Thendic France possibly
could start finance bPlan doesn't mean that bPlan had other resources
that could finance their actions.

> However I have seen certain Genesi representatives here. See the
> difference?

>Yes, dr Kouri has invested in AInc, but he has not, at least not under
>his own name, taken part in on-line discussions about it. And this is
>relevant for exactly what?

You dragged him into the discussion where I used the word symbiosis.
And as I tried to explain, I have never seen or heard of him so I
found it hard to believe he would be selling Amiga Incs products.
Genesi otoh has been doing that quite frequently, here among other
places. Hence the word 'symbiosis'.

> If you had been more carefull with your reading you would have
> notcied that one of the estimates was spot on if you include the
> margins I gave.

>Which one, the $100 estimate or, eh, the $100 estimate?

You said 2 estimates were wrong, and I assumed that you meant the
board size and # of layers. The other number is just a product of
the 2. If you wern't, I am sorry, but you have been using 'you were
wrong' and other statements when it comes to # of layers in the PCB.

>Now you're saying that this estimate was for a six layer board, which
>is interesting considering how your main assumption was obviously 8
>layers before. But go ahead, make your claims. When you have made a

My main assumption??? I said 6-8 layers and said 'Let say 6 then' when
you gave me the correct number.

>claim that, if true, would show that the Pegasos 1 was subsidised, we
>can start to look a little closer at it. At the moment you don't have
>any such claim except "I find it hard to believe", ie you're
>just guessing.

Yep, I am just guessing, but contrary to you I am doing my guessing
based on calculations rather than ideological convictions.

>Why should I? You're the one trying to show that the BOM for the
>Pegasos 1 would be too high, not I.

Well, if you did know it, how come you were so quick to refer to only
63 sq inch, when in fact you'd know you were lying (ie. in case you
did think about it)
Besides, what is your main motivation here? Pointing out flaws in my
reasoning or defending bPlan at all cost? If it isn't the former,
then wouldn't it be alot more constructive to try to reach the
truth as closely as possible?

> Now you really owe me an appology, because here is the qoute:
> (I had to put 2 messages back together since you so conveniently
> left out the important parts)

>You mean you had to forge the quote because I never said what you just
>claimed that I said. Because I "conveniently" left out the irrelevant
>parts.

Seriously, that is a quite grave accusation you are making. Care to back
it up? How come posting 2 messages after each other is forging, but
leaving out relevant parts is not???
For anyone that reads your qouting of me will believe that I insist
on the board beeing 8 layers. You know why? Becuase you took an
old quote saying layer 7-8, took away the part where I acknowledged
you that it is probably 6 layers and wrote "You made a guess, but you
were wrong" Excuse me for putting everything back into context.
I actually had to look back 4 messages, because I couldn't believe
how stupid I sounded. Until I realized that you had left out the
important part!

> Johan Rönnblom did not answer this with:
>> Stefan Burström wrote
>>> Johan Rönnblom wrote:
>>>> Stefan Burström wrote:
>>>>> 6 or 8 layers I'd guess.
>>>> Six, I think it has been stated, at least not more.
>>> Ok, say 6 then.
>>>>> Microvias between layer 1-2 and 7-8 to be able to route the
>>>>> BGA's.
>>>> There's no layer 7-8..
>>> Duh! You don't understand how funny you are! If you have microvias
>>> between
>> No. There is no layer 7-8, period.

Johan Rönnblom *really* replied to:
> Stefan Burström:
>> Duh! You don't understand how funny you are!
> No. There is no layer 7-8, period.

Yep, but you so conviniently left out the part where I acknowledged that
6 layers were probably used and made it look like I was still insisting
on 8 layers. Where I was explaning I meant the outermost layer. But
you removed that part too. You also removed the important part where
I said I looked up the prices for a 6 layers board.

>What you're doing here is that first you say that the board may have
>6-8 layers, but then you rapidly go on to assume that it has the more
>expensive 8 layers after all. This gets rather funny when you place

No, I never assumed anything about 8 expensive layers, I was just
pointing out that in the outermost layers (layer 1-2 and 7-8 of an
8 layer PCB and layer 1-2 and 5-6 of an 6 layer PCB) would likely
contain microvias. How come you removed the "Ok, say 6 then" Line?
The expensive part is the micro via layer, not the actual # of the
layer it goes through.

>the microvias in thin air, which probably means nothing to me as you'd
>say "I really meant between the outermost layers", but to any outside
>observer it illustrates quite clearly how you go on with your

No, seriosly, to any outside observer who knows anything about PCB's
it is very clear what I mean.

>speculation much further than your knowledge about the Pegasos 1
>allows you to do. If you *really* wanted to do a low estimate, you
>would have assumed it had 6 layers. But that's not what you wanted,
>obviously.

How many times do I have to say that the prices I did check was for
a 6 layer board???????

>> Unless you want to claim that the "basics of PCB design" somehow
>> dictate that no 6-layered 63sqin PCB can ever be produced below a
>> cost of $300, it doesn't help.

> I never said that the PCB alone would cost more than $300. But hey,
> I am getting used of you misqouting me.

>what I claim above, and still do, is that all your "PCB design basics"
>argumentation does *nothing* to support your case.

Well, it is a good starting point for the cost of the PCB, but hey
anything that is a cost is wrong your eyes, right? For every thing
I have brought up you will find a way to say I am wrong without
checking any facts.

>And btw, it's spelt "quote", not "qoute". And you're not allowed to
>quote people by cutting and pasting together different messages making
>it seem like people made different statements than they really did.

Seriously. Correcting spelling errors like that isn't likely to make
you more credible.

>So obviously you're looking at the wrong place right away, as this
>doesn't give you any low estimate at all.

It gave me a starting point as good as any. But sure, I am always looking
at the wrong place, making the wrong assumption etc. according to you
since it is in your nature to brush off anything that can be even
remotely critical to your rather emotional point of view!

Come on, you're claiming that the Pegasos 1 can't have been made cheap
enough to be sold at the price it had. Now, can you just for a second
>imagine that you might be wrong, here. Is that possible for you, or
>are you really just Samface in disguise? Ok, let's assume you can. Now

If I am samface in disguise, I guess you would be Eva run through a
spellchecker then :-)

>how would it be possible, then? Well, obviously one reason could be
>that bPlan somehow managed to source their parts very cheaply. Then,
>obviously, they would not buy them from Digi-key. So again, you have a

To source parts cheaply, it requires you to order large quantities and
accept long lead times. Neither of that is something you do during
a prototype run. There is a tradeoff between getting the parts
cheap and getting the result in time (result == getting to know if
the board works or not)

>high estimate, which is not very useful, as Digi-key probably have
>huge margins on at least some of their products, as they seem to base

Bla bla bla. Well whatever I come up with is wrong in your eyes so
why do I even care arguing with you?

>their market on being able to supply a few components quickly, in
>cases where it really doesn't matter to most customers if they cost
>two dollars or twenty cents.

Yup, which is what you do when you do prototype runs. Otherwise you
spend far too much time and money looking for components that you
wont be able to buy anyway.

> My guess whas that the PCB's alone would be around 100USD which is
> a claim that I still stand by.

>Ok, and divided upon the three PCB's, how would these 100USD be
>distributed roughly? I'm asking because there's no use showing how the
>main board could be made for $50 if you could just claim that "yeah,
>but it would still be $100 in total".

Roughly according to their relative sizes. Their complexity and buildup
are most likely similar.

>Anyway, until you've reached those $300 we agreed upon, you don't even
>have an argument here. It's more like, you give an estimate of one of
>the most expensive parts, then you wave your hands and imply that
>the total will reach some unspecified sum.

I didn't even intend to go that far, esp since I cannot find any historic
prices of the SB or NB used. I started this as a nice exercise
for people to think about when they are discussing the costs of a Pegasos
board.

>How could I "understand" when all you're offering are guesses and "I
>find it hard to believe"s? If you want to show that the Pegasos 1 was

Well, for a start to understand that when I say 'Ok, lets say 6 then'
it actually means that I have accepted your suggestion. Instead you kept
mumbling about other things ending up accusing me from forging your posts.

>too expensive to produce, you'll have to back this up. You chose to do
>it by going into the BOM. Fair enough. But when you're unable to
>even estimate a BOM that proves your point, you're chickening out it
>seems.

As I said, I am not chickening out at all. I never inteded this discussion
to go this far. I expected people to use my numbers as a starting point
if they wanted to dig further.

Stefan Burström wrote:
> AdmVOrlOn wrote:
>> You are aware that the person you are arguing with has taken the
>> Genesi shilling previously? And has a record of arguing in their
>> favour no matter what facts, realities or occurances take place?

> No really? I even tried to point that out to him, but he didn't
> understand why.

>Given that I've never taken a single cent from Genesi, it is a little
>hard to understand. And even if I had, you don't get more ad hominem
>than this. Well I think you just lost this argument for good.

Sorry, I missunderstood what he meant by that. I thought he meant
stod up for genesi and arguing in their favor. Sorry, I was tired when
I wrote it. HOWEVER, if you had read further on, you might have seen
that I corrected AdmV when I said that you wasn't among the group of
Genesi workers/Genesi ex-worker. But as usual, you are removing parts
of my text and quouting the rest as if it was the only thing I said.

>Forging my quotes, lying about me, going into personal attacks when
>you don't "want" (can't?) support your theory with facts. How nice!

Forging your quotes and lying about you??? This was over the top. Really!
Care to tell my what quote I have forged. And where I have lied about
you? If I have misconceptions about you, then it is your own fault
because it is you who are displaying the image of yourself that I
among others have seen. If my preception is wrong, then by all means
forgive me. But do remember that you are at fault for that yourself
and you shouldn't run around and telling that I am lying about you
just because I have seen you behave like you do here!
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 447 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by AdmV0rl0n on 22-Jul-2004 17:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 445 (Johan Rönnblom):
Apologies? I don't think so. You've now added that you believe Thendic France was *not* merged to form Genesi, they are not connected and I am lying by your inference. *shruug*.

As for me not being a nice person, I'm not the one defending the infensible, the lies, the bullshit. So if me picking these up makes me a bad person, then I'm the baddest man around.
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 448 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by AdmV0rl0n on 22-Jul-2004 17:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 446 (Stefan Burström):
Oh, but he DID work there/for them, he is merely making spurious bullshit to try and claim otherwise.

He even now seems to publicly deny the merger.
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 449 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Stefan Burström on 22-Jul-2004 18:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 448 (AdmV0rl0n):
>Oh, but he DID work there/for them, he is merely making spurious bullshit >totry and claim otherwise.

Perhaps he did, but that wasn't what I tried to comment on, but still I got the usual b*llsh*it back.

>He even now seems to publicly deny the merger.

Well, I have lost track of all Thendic bPlan Genesi whatever happenings that
has happened in the past. No wonder one keeps lumping them together. Johan's
tactic during this discussion seem to be to leave out vital parts and all of
a sudden backstab you with it.

regards,
Stefan
Announcement: Technical data of the new Catweasel MK4 : Comment 450 of 469ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 22-Jul-2004 18:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 446 (Stefan Burström):
Stefan Burström wrote:
> Why should I need to chicken out?

Presumably because you can't find any arguments to support your
theory. You thought you could get away with it unchallenged, but you
didn't.


> So let's say we were able to show a 10 USD profit on each Pegasos 2
> board sold today, would that say anything about the profit of the
> Pegasos 1, 1.5 year ago???

Yes, it would say infinitely more about that price than what you have
presented thus far. A cost estimate of the Pegasos 2 within 95%
accuracy would be an *extremely* good starting point, compared to your
wild guesses.

> We were talking about the Pegasos 1 wern't we? Dunno, but afaik,
> that board wasn't produced or shipped at all during late fall 2003.
> So there goes your 'Pegasoes were shipping after the bankruptcy'
> theory.

They weren't shipped because instead, they shipped Pegasos 2 boards,
duh. Come on, you really think the Pegasos 2 is that much cheaper to
make, *at the same point in time*?

> And just because Pegasos boards were shipped before Thendic France
> possibly could start finance bPlan

They were not.

> I have never seen or heard of him so I found it hard to believe he
> would be selling Amiga Incs products. Genesi otoh has been doing
> that quite frequently, here among other places. Hence the word
> 'symbiosis'.

Ok, I just didn't find the entry "Symbiosis: n. The relationship
between an entity selling a product, and the maker of said product."
in my dictionary, so I got the impression that you rather meant
something different. But thanks for clearing that up, then.

> You said 2 estimates were wrong, and I assumed that you meant the
> board size and # of layers.

Indeed I did.

> My main assumption??? I said 6-8 layers and said 'Let say 6 then'
> when you gave me the correct number.

Well, mr PCB expert, that's precisely the problem here. It wouldn't be
a problem if you were willing to give an estimate of enough parts that
it exceeded those $300, because then we could just look at that
analysis for what it was and disregard where it comes from, but it is
a problem as long as you're trying to support your theory by referring
to your authority, and bash my counterarguments with things like
"lol", "hilarious", "clueless junk", etc.

> Yep, I am just guessing, but contrary to you I am doing my guessing
> based on calculations rather than ideological convictions.

Oh really. Show us those calculations then, please. I take the rest of
that statement to mean that since I'm not agreeing with you, I must be
wrong, and my guesses must be unreliable, unlike your guesses which
are reliable because, of course, you are right.

[additional PCBs in the Pegasos]
> Well, if you did know it, how come you were so quick to refer to
> only 63 sq inch, when in fact you'd know you were lying

Because we were discussing the main PCB and not any other parts. The
other PCBs are different btw, at least the one under the Articia.
Can't be bothered to examine the CPU card now.

> Besides, what is your main motivation here? Pointing out flaws in my
> reasoning or defending bPlan at all cost?

Pointing out flaws in your reasoning, obviously. It's called a
critical discussion. If you can give me arguments which I can't find
flaws in, I'll agree that you're right.

> then wouldn't it be alot more constructive to try to reach the truth
> as closely as possible?

Sure. The issue at hand is whether the Peg 1 was subsidised or not.
You're claiming that it was. I find that claim doubtful. You're trying
to prove it by calculating the production cost. I explain that in
order for that to prove anything, you have to calculate a minimum
cost, rather than use the first price for each component that you can
come up with. Is that something you want to question?

> Seriously, that is quite a grave accusation you are making. Care to
> back it up?

Sure. The part of the quote you made in comment 435, that starts with
">> Duh! You don't understand" and ends with "layer 7-8, period."
never occurs in this thread. You admit yourself that you deliberately
created it by cutting and pasting different post together. Well,
that's the definition of forgery.

> How come posting 2 messages after each other is forging,

You didn't just post them after each other, you spliced them together.

> but leaving out relevant parts is not???

Because leaving out relevant parts is called underquoting, not
forgery. What is relevant or not is highly subjective, and since we're
all leaving out things, it's inevitable that we'll sometimes remove
something someone else finds important. I didn't even understand that
it was the "Ok, say 6 then" part you were referring to, as I never
answered to that statement. That is also why I never quoted it. After
all, I've never questioned that you conceeded that the Peg 1 PCB
has six layers.

> No, I never assumed anything about 8 expensive layers,

So you say, I'd say that's up to each reader to read comment 203
and judge for themselves.

> I was just pointing out that in the outermost layers (layer 1-2 and
> 7-8 of an 8 layer PCB and layer 1-2 and 5-6 of an 6 layer PCB) would
> likely contain microvias. How come you removed the "Ok, say 6 then"
> Line? The expensive part is the micro via layer, not the actual # of
> the layer it goes through.

Likely contain? So there may be no such expensive microvias at all,
you now say? And, let me ask, have you found out whether the Pegasos 1
has them, or not? Or are you just assuming that they do, because you
want to arrive at a higher cost for the PCB?

> How many times do I have to say that the prices I did check was for
> a 6 layer board???????

Right. And next you'll tell me that you checked the prices for a 6
layer board without expensive microvias, too. Right?

> For every thing I have brought up you will find a way to say I am
> wrong without checking any facts.

Well, if you can't stand it when people disagree, I'm sure you have
forums where you can express yourself without being questioned.

> Seriously. Correcting spelling errors like that isn't likely to make
> you more credible.

No, but it might make you a better speller. I just noticed you used
the same spelling twice, so I guessed it wasn't just a slip of the
fingers. Yes, I'm a pedant. And yes, you can still find typos in my
posts if you look hard, and grammar errors too.

[looking for connector prices at Digi-key]
> It gave me a starting point as good as any. But sure, I am always
> looking at the wrong place, making the wrong assumption etc.
> according to you since it is in your nature to brush off anything
> that can be even remotely critical to your rather emotional point of
> view!

Oh I'm sure, as opposed to your cool, factual point of view. Maybe if
you didn't use multiple question marks in every other paragraph..

> To source parts cheaply, it requires you to order large quantities
> and accept long lead times.

Long lead times sounds rather like what we've been experiencing with
both the Peg 1 and Peg 2 production. Large quantities can to some
extent be substituted by good bargaining skills and business contacts.
I happen to know a couple of good bargainers who are related..

> Neither of that is something you do during a prototype run. There is
> a tradeoff between getting the parts cheap and getting the result in
> time (result == getting to know if the board works or not)

Right. But I thought we were talking about those units that were sold,
according to our mutual guess, at $300 a piece to various dealers? It
doesn't seem unlikely at all that some prototype used parts from
Digi-key. But in order to be able to sell them for $300, I think they
would rather use a different source.

> Well whatever I come up with is wrong in your eyes so why do I even
> care arguing with you?

Maybe it's because your original theory was erroneous. The result of
that is often that your supporting arguments turn out to be bad. Trust
me, it's happened to me too.

[buying expensive but easily available parts]
> Yup, which is what you do when you do prototype runs. Otherwise you
> spend far too much time and money looking for components that you
> wont be able to buy anyway.

If you intend to do volume production, why not make the first few
thousand units cheap too, if you can? Besides, as bPlan have been in
this business for quite some time, I bet they already had some
connector connections.

[cost of different PCBs of the Peg 1]
> Roughly according to their relative sizes. Their complexity and
> buildup are most likely similar.

Nope, doesn't need a PCB expert to see that this is wrong.

> I never intended the discussion to go this far. I expected people to
> use my numbers as a starting point if they wanted to dig further.

Ok, so you're not going to back up your claim that the Peg 1 was
subsidised? Good, then we have that settled.

> Sorry, I misunderstood what he meant by that. I thought he meant
> stod up for genesi and arguing in their favor. Sorry, I was tired
> when I wrote it.

Ok, accepted. And reading back, it seems you were more critical to his
claims than I thought before, so sorry for saying that you lied about
my person. Indeed I read mainly the first paragraph, where you agreed
with him, and didn't adjust my impression enough from the second
paragraph, making me miss the possibility of a misunderstanding.

As for the forging, well, that's what you did. As you actually told me
that you were putting two messages together, and since you still claim
that you don't understand that this would be forgery, I guess you
didn't really have evil intentions but.. still, I can't accept that
you cut and paste my posts to make it seem like I'm answering to a
different statement than I really did.
Anonymous, there are 469 items in your selection (but only 69 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 250] [251 - 300] [301 - 350] [351 - 400] [401 - 450] [451 - 469]
Back to Top